Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Support for all bank charge reclaimers in the Indie today


DollyDayDream
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6306 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I couldn't believe my eyes when I picked up The Independent from the mat this morning. A front page spread, an article on pages 2 and 3, the main leader and an article in the financial section, all on the subject of unfair bank charges and supporting the right of customers to challenge the banks over this. The financial article mocks the idea of ending free banking in view of the record profits Barclays are expected to announce today. It also says that the OFT has 'already judges such charges to be ILLEGAL' - not just unlawful. Is that as significant as I think it could be? It certainly seems very encouraging to us all to keep going for the return of OUR money!!

 

DDD.

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it DollyDayDream, I nearly had a heart attack on the train ! It's was so funny as the normal shoulder surfers that read over your shoulder could not belive it ! Obviously I mentioned to them about this site and then discussed my own current claim, it put a smile on everyone's face ! Even the Ipod / headphone group stopped playing there music to Listen in !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm retired now, so I just took the paper back to bed with a cuppa and enjoyed the news. When I filed my papers at the court last week I managed to tell the girl who dealt with them about CAG. She was gobsmacked that it was possible to get money back from the banks. They obviously don't have time to read through what they are processing - perhaps because we are keeping them so busy!! :D

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a bandwaggon effect is happening now. Today it's the front page, page2, page 33, page 36 and page 39. Then there were mentions on TV and radio news as well as Watchdog and so on. Last night a further 20,000 people downloaded the template letters, so they won't know what's hit them. I imagine it will slow the process - or maybe they'll throw in the towel and meekly give us our money back?!!

DDD.

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

20,000 "Give me my charges back" letters on their way shortly?

 

I can see the response being 20,000 standard 'bog off' letters. Sent at the end of the response deadline, of course.

 

Some will drop away, some will persevere with S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s if need be. Cue another 40-day delay. Those who persevere (or already have statements), and continue with the 14-day LBA, then MCOL/N1 will prompt a serious response from the Courts at the Allocation stage. Something will hit the fan at that point, I think.

 

I get the impression that the banks are hanging on desperately for the OFT to recommend a 'fair charge', so that their lawyers can counter-offer intelligently. 20,000 at an average of £1,000 is £20 Million ...

 

For those of us fortunate enough to already have cases lodged, I'm hoping that this prompts a few sensible, early offers.

 

But then again, I always was naive!

 

;-)

"Weasel (n): any person or group that operates in that vast grey area between good ethical behaviour and the sort of activities that might send you to jail".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the charges were unlawful, not Illegal as the independent has reported. Can someone confirm either way, to satisfy my curiosity? Ta.

 

HI PAULROCKLIFFE. According to Collins Gem mini dictionary eleventh issue 2003. Unlawful means: Not allowed by law.

Illegal means : Against the law. Very confusing:confused:

WOTCUMSROUND

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

HI PAULROCKLIFFE. According to Collins Gem mini dictionary eleventh issue 2003. Unlawful means: Not allowed by law.

Illegal means : Against the law. Very confusing:confused:

 

Unlawful is basically 'against the spirit of the law'.

 

Banks are acting unlawfully as we are proving by them paying up every time. Not precedent has been set so they are not acting Illegally...... maybe one day that will change!

 

The paper shouldn't really have used the term 'illegal', but they are not the first to do it - The Money Programme' recently said it too....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlawful is basically 'against the spirit of the law'.

Banks are acting unlawfully as we are proving by them paying up every time. Not precedent has been set so they are not acting Illegally...... maybe one day that will change!

The paper shouldn't really have used the term 'illegal', but they are not the first to do it - The Money Programme' recently said it too....

Thanks for clearing that up Thailand but what the banks have done for years in my own small opinion is Legal Robbery. Lets hope the wind has changed for the better now.

WOTCUMSROUND

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...